Strategic leadership for the future of India

[Keshav]

Good posts by Shiv and Ramana.

Ramana -
In response to your post that the Partition riots did affect the views of the communities toward a more modernized outlook, I might ask how?

If they were truly felt that religion had no purpose or perhaps was a hindrance after Partition, once can certainly sympathize. They would be truly secular, not pseudo-secular.

[brihaspati]

RamaY wrote
What should be the strategic vision for Independent India for next 50-100 years? Should India strive to be a big-boy at all?
What should be the composition of Strategic leadership for the future of India?
What strategies it can follow to take each of the above ‘interest’ groups with it?

All national consolidation and corresponding political, military developments have to be preceded by a cultural renaissance. What does cultural renaissance consist of? It comprises all aspects of social and national life, searching for and finding symbols and aspects that the nation can look upon with pride and something that a person would feel personally elevated to identify and associate with. Festivals like that of "spring festival" or "harvest" are universal in nature, rooted deeply in the historical/cultural spectrum of the land, and independent of political or religious authorities. The key criteria for reviving elements are that they give sense of "liberation", they "empower", they are "joyful", they cut across social stratifications, and they give a sense of being part of an immense mass of humanity bound by common cultural sympathies. It just doesn't have to be festivals, but music, literature, art, sports - all encompassing.

Strategic vision for the next 50 years :

India ensures sustainable food, habitat and energy security for its population which it also manages to stabilize. It builds capacity to process and service all information and knowledge requirements of the entire world, making it the centre for global information processing and production. Instead of western style imperialism, India makes its presence felt through education and skills development.

In its immediate vicinity, India reincorporates the Indian territories occupied by hostile powers and used to launch damaging attacks on India. Complete dissolution of Pakistan, and reamalgmation of erstwhile Pakistani territories as provinces of India, and formation of a super-state on the subcontinent, where the peripheral countries join in with various degrees of autonomy. All this achieved with diplomacy, economic measures ("buying out"), or war if necessary.

Indian navy shares or takes over running of bases in the indian Ocean, and India leads a maritime union of Indian Ocean rim countries. Indian navy makes its presence felt in the Atlantic and Pacific to safeguard entry to the Indian Ocean.

India stabilizes military, economic and political alliances with CAR, involving Russia right upto Mongolia in the first half. India takes Iran on board, while working towards its eventual transition out of orthodoxy. All this in preparation to isolate PRC, and establishment of the independent Republic of Tibet.

Indian Armed Forces and hardware developed appropriately to achieve strategic roles.

Should India strive to be a "big-boy"?
This is not a question of becoming a big-boy, it is about doing what is "right". If doing "right" requires to be a "big-boy", so be it.

What should be the composition of Strategic leadership for the future of India?

There cannot be a question of composition of leadership. There is no component or admixture in leadership. The task of a leader is to set the agenda, provide visions, and be unbending uncompromising on target. Once these qualities are observable, and the agenda suits our long term vision, we do not have to go into their origins or their origins are irrelevant.

What strategies it can follow to take each of the above ‘interest’ groups with it?

The common IM and all who only see salvation in non-Indic philosophies, have to be separated from their leadership. The leadership has to be targeted for ideological deconstruction to destroy or weaken their authority and "pulling" power. The "visionary" Hindutvavadi and "paranoid" Hindutvavadi can come together if the "visionary" can also make the "paranoid" share in their "vision". That attempt has not been made, which makes the paranoid feel lost.

[Rahul Mehta]

Rudradev wrote: I don't see how the destruction of a regenerative ideological apparatus is even remotely possible in practical terms. The mighty Americans have invaded Iraq, but they couldn't even weed out the adherents of pan-Arab Ba'ath socialism... an ideology that is relatively in its infancy... from the political classes in that country. In fact they've had to fall back on recruiting the very Ba'athists they spent so much effort trying to purge, because nobody else seems able to run the country. If they could not root out Ba'athism how could they in a million years destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus of Islam? How could anybody? This is fantasy. The ideological regenerative apparatus is designed to survive even the most horrifically adverse conditions, of the sort that would flatten nations or states.

The Americans have taken the "cut the oxygen supply" way to kill the beast. Or consider enemy trapped in a castle. You can break the castle, but if you manage to stop the water supply, enemy will be killed.

The Americans saw that prime strength to Islamist apparatus comes from weapons and weapons comes from oil money. So capture or destroy the oil well and islamists will be begging for food and water, and will confine to yelling but not shooting. Iraq was first, Iran is next and then Islamists will be completely dependent on US. The US will then use Islamists for its own goals and once the goals are attained they will kill all islamists as well.

----

Islam was never ideologicaly unhinged parasite - its ideology was calculated shrewdly to optimize extraction of biological resources from others. Today Muslims can move even an UN resolution to ban all and any criticism or critical analysis of its ideology, and they can hold an entire Indian state to ransom even though they are only 14% of the population and force the remaining 86% to sponsor its holy trips to Mecca. It will be a big mistake to dub historical Islamic behaviour as "ideologically unhinged" - it is shrewdly calculated to continue the extraction process. A good question is that there are hardly any economic calculations as to the cost of existence of TSP to India since its formation. I would love to start the financial calculations of the cost to India of "Islamic Jihad" in Kashmir but I would rather not since it will nicely play into the hands of those who try to say - its so much more beneficial for India to "give Kashmir up".

War is won by quality of weapons and not by number of soldiers. Latter matter, but only as long as quality of weapons are at least somewhat OK. eg Robert Clive had 5000 soldiers and Siraj-ud-Daulla had 200,000 and even after Mir Jafar became inactive, he still had over 100,000. Yet Clive won and he had lost only 50 soldiers. Why? Because he had better cannons. I can give countless examples. The islamists dont have any weapons. With some imported guns, they can probably kill some 50000 soldiers in next 10-20 years and with 911 like terrorist attacks, then can kill at most 50000 to 10000 civilians in next 10-20 years, If they manage to get some WMDs, they might be able to kill some more. But with each 911 type attack, West will show determination to kill 10-100 times more people in ME. Now since Islamists dont have weapon manufacturing capability, they will eventually get beaten down, no matter how many numbers they have. And if push comes to shove, US will kill/maime EVERY young man in Middle East, You can fight much with a limb gone. Or US will imprison every young man, just as Italians had "imprisoned" over 20% of population in Libya in 1930s in camps, where in there beaten and raped endlessly.

After defeat and capture of all oil well, when supply of basic medicine and food decreases, the death rate, infant death rate and pregnancy mortality will climb and so growth rate in islamic countries will become negative. And then the only weapon they have, population , too will get blunted. Everything that I am predicting HAPPENED in Libya in 1930s. If Italians could do it in 1930s, Americans are far more stronger than Italians of 1930s and can do the same on entire ME in coming years.

[shiv]

I think it is important to see Islam in India as a defeated force.

Hindus love to see themselves as defeated and - using that "defeated status" as a starting point attempt to see what existed before that defeat and regain that.

But history and reality are more complex than this simplistic scenario. Hindu India sort of allowed Islam in by a mixture of blending, cooperation to screw the next guy and military defeat. Hindus and Muslims started a complex dance of history when the British came in and soundly thrashed both dancers.

A portion of the defeated Muslims of India imagined that all the glory of Mughal India was Islamic and Islamic alone. They imagined that a return to Islamic fervor would recreate Mughal India. They sought to reclaim an Islamic India from the British. That was impossible - so they scuppered off to Pakistan imagining that Mughal India would somehow reappear from there.

But just look ad the warm fly-infested dungpile that Pakistan has become. Pakistan is that way because Mughal India was not islam and Islam alone. The Indic elements of India were essential for Mughal glory. This whole talk of Islamic glory in Mughal India ignores this aspect. And after ignoring the vital Indic spark in the blend of architecture, music and art . Pakis claim all that as Islamic, while naive ("I am defeated") Hindus fall for that claim - agreeing the Mughal India was Islamic dry desert air.

What the people who created Pakistan did not realise was that Islam itself was a spent force. Islam had spent itself and civilised itself somewhat in India. The Brits would never have gone away without the powerful nationalism of the Hindus - undoubtedly aided by the nationalism of Indic Muslims. Pakistan tried to use that spent force to make a new Islamic empire and its success in creating bearded men hiding in caves reveals what the Mughal empire would have been minus India.

With Islam itself having been defeated - it is profoundly stupid of the Hindu to take on Indian Islam as his prime threat and "try and defeat it". Indian islam is a tired horse which needs water and food so the people who happened to be born into it can live as humans rather than being bashed up for being born Muslim in India. Any Indian Muslim who imagine that Mughal glory was theirs needs to be rapidly instructed to stuff his head where the sun don't shine and work to create a new India empire and not try and make a Pakistan in india. Or else..

Hindus too need to understand the currents of history. They must preserve and uphold their ancient traditions but the damn Hindu has to first understand what those ancient traditions were in the first place. A lot of Hindutvadis don't even understand what is India, or what India was - so enamored are they of that stupid word "Hindu". Indic culture has not really been defeated but "Hindus" must not go around howling, beating their breasts and crying that Muslims are here and that the presence of Muslims is a reminder of Hindu defeat. This is what the Pakistanis are telling them and Hindus seem to want to believe that. Pakistan today exemplifies the glory of Islam

India still represents India and its ability to absorb and adapt without really throwing anything away like a bigoted ideologue born from a featureless dry sand-dune. What bothers me is that the rigid and bigoted thought process of Islam has been absorbed by some people who call themselves "Hindus" What is then applied by Hindutva is not the Indic style of analysis but the Islamic style of "recognizing and discriminating against the other"

Since some Hindus love to see themselves as "defeated" they feel that this Islamic style of working has been effective against them and seek to use the same mode of working to "defeat" an already defeated islam. It irritates me a great deal to see political Hindutva of today standing right up there side by side with mullahs in dictating an Islamic version of morality with complete and utter blindness to the diversity of moral codes that Indic culture allowed. If well meaning nationalistic Hindutva leaders have to depend on cadres such as these goons for the future of India - they will get the drubbing of their lives in the long term. Hindutva is protected by the nation, not by self styled blinkered leaders.

[Rudradev]

Rudradev wrote
I don't see how the destruction of a regenerative ideological apparatus is even remotely possible in practical terms. The mighty Americans have invaded Iraq, but they couldn't even weed out the adherents of pan-Arab Ba'ath socialism... an ideology that is relatively in its infancy... from the political classes in that country. In fact they've had to fall back on recruiting the very Ba'athists they spent so much effort trying to purge, because nobody else seems able to run the country. If they could not root out Ba'athism how could they in a million years destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus of Islam? How could anybody? This is fantasy. The ideological regenerative apparatus is designed to survive even the most horrifically adverse conditions, of the sort that would flatten nations or states.

This is on the assumption that Americans at all tried to destroy the regenerative ideological apparatus. To do so would have meant systematically going after the theologians - not the Baathists. Baathists have several differences from Islamic theologians, even if they both converge on bloddthirst. America models others by itself, where it thinks there is some degree of separation between the political and the theological, and it went after the political. Rooting out another ideology's regenerative apparatus is possible - Islam itself has proved that in Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Th difficulty is simply because the campaign is being fought under modern times and from a side which has constantly to think of watching its steps in case its crossing the lines of "war crimes" are recorded by media and broadcast. But this is not fantasy.

No, it does not revolve around such an assumption. It is well known that the Neocons' doctrine on invading Iraq was to purge the administration of Ba'ath cadres at all levels because they were thought most likely to offer resistance and remain loyal to Saddam. Ultimately the Americans failed to achieve this goal, and today former Ba'ath functionaries are very much involved in the present dispensation.

My point is not that the Americans erred by choosing to target Ba'athism rather than Islamism. It is that even the Americans, with all their resources and all their contempt for international opprobrium (they invaded Iraq in the first place without UN sanction) could not root out such a flimsy and recently-established postcolonial ideology as Ba'athism. So what is the hope, in practical terms, of anyone rooting out the regenerative apparatus of an ideology so much more firmly entrenched and well-developed as Islamism?

There is nothing trivial about using methods that could be characterized as "war crimes" in this day and age, and I cannot imagine sustaining them for the length of time necessary to actually achieve such a goal as ideological eradication.

What happened after the demise of Muhammed is completely irrelevant to the present situation. At that time there was hardly any state structure to speak of, just a set of territories that had been freshly subjugated by violent conquest. So no matter how Muhammed's successors may have vied with one another on the basis of ideological credibility, there was no temporal power structure to suffer a cost from such infighting.

The Islamic state of the the Ummayids, and the Hispanic branch of Ummayids, and the Abbasids or Fatimids having "hardly any state structure to speak of"? No temporal power structure to suffer the costs of? Maybe we have to go through Caliphate history once again!

No, maybe we need to be a little more specific about what we are saying. Until the reign of Hisham bin Abdel Malik, when consolidation began in earnest, the Umayyad possession could no more be described as a "state" than the territories subjugated by Atilla the Hun or Genghis Khan. The Ummayad Caliphate in its first century of existence, was not remotely comparable to contemporary state-structures like Byzantium in terms of organizational sophistication. The Abbasids did indeed evolve a more formal state structure, but their Caliphate was not even founded until more than a century after the demise of Muhammed, which is the event you have referred to in your post.

What temporal power structure existed, that could be significantly harmed as a result of the internecine ideological conflicts between the successors of Muhammed? This was an "empire" consisting of mainly Polytheist, Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian peoples subject to extortion and enslavement by Muslim warlords. That's an entirely different situation from a modern Islamic nation whose polity is not only Muslim but Islamized, and which is by no means the dominant military power even in its own neighbourhood. The modern Islamic nation has relatively far more to lose from conflicts arising between its temporal authorities and its nuclei of ideological orthodoxy... because it is subject to pressures that the Rashiduns or early Ummayids never had to contend with, in terms of internal social contract and external challenges.

That is entirely different from the situation in Pakistan today... where we see a state authority with a different set of priorities from those fostered by the nuclei of ideological regeneration. Under normal circumstances the nuclei protect the state structure from ideological erosion, and under conditions where the state structure is in danger of collapse as a result of overwhelming temporal assault (from any military, economic or any other non-ideological source) the nuclei provide insurance against the concurrent extermination of the ideology.

This is perhaps an oversimplification of the TSP state structure. The forms of the state apparatus appear to have a different set of agenda from the neuclei of regeneration because the "forms" are that of "modern/democatic/Anglo-Saxonic" that has been foisted upon a base which has never been modern/democratic/Anglo-Saxonic. The actual state is better represented by the PA+theologian networks, which comes closer to the Islamic ideal of the state. This real state was always there from the inception of Pakistan and this real state is nowhere near collapse.

The "modern/democratic/Anglo-Saxonic" aspect of Pakistan, as I'm sure every BRF-ite knows, is purely a facade for the benefit of its Modern, Democratic and Anglo-Saxonic sponsors. It does not reflect the nature of any genuine aspect of the Pakistani state at all.

The dichotomy is not between a M/D/A-S state structure and the ideological nuclei of Islamist regeneration. It is between the TSPA and the theologian networks, which play the classic roles of Sultan and Ulema in a classic Islamist state structure that Pakistan has been steadily evolving since the 1980s. Arguably such a structure has existed since the inception of Pakistan, but since the time of Zia it has sought less and less to conceal its true nature from the rest of the world.

That is the model on which I predicate the idea that maintaining an equilibrium of conflict between the nuclei of ideological regeneration and the TSPA/RAPE state authority is a better bet for managing Pakistan than outright destruction.

In this model, a Strong Sultan commands the cooperation of the Ulema and the homage of the Amirs, and at a lower level the obedience of the people. The state as a whole is strong and capable of expansion.

A Dead Sultan is quickly replaced with the guidance of the Ulema, giving due consideration to the prerogative of ideological regeneration. After a brief interregnum, the state rapidly regenerates, and continues to expand with its ideological core intact.

However, a Weak Sultan finds himself constantly battling the ideological challenges of the Ulema, unable to command the resources of the Amirs, and lacking in the confidence of the people. It is this particular equilibrium that imposes costs on the ability of the state as a whole to expand or compete.

Lacking the capacity to occupy Pakistan and systematically destroy all its ideological nuclei of regeneration... I contend that maintaining such an equilibrium is the most attractive of currently available options.

Secondly, no matter what might have happened during the succession struggles, nobody challenged Muhammed himself on ideological grounds during his lifetime. This is again very dissimilar from Pakistan, where direct challenges by the various Tanzeems and Madrassahs against the authority of the TSPA result in struggles that inflict huge costs to the power of the Pakistani state as a whole.

There were some challenges to Muhammad's authority even during his lifetime on ideological grounds. However, once again the situations are not comparable, because the challenges are not to the real state structure which is the consolidation and fusion of theologian, military power into a single state structure. The challenges are to the political forms which are alien to Islam.

One must pose challenges to the political forms which are native to Islam... that is the whole point. Even if they have fused theologian and military power into a single state structure, it is possible to exploit the fissures and faultlines that exist between them.

The peculiar situation in Pakistan today is characterized by the existence of a "wrapper" around the core Islamic state which is the product of the "fusion" you describe. That "wrapper" is best represented by the so-called "civilian administration". You are correct in saying that simply encouraging Ulema rebellion against the "wrapper" is of no use. It is against the Sultan itself... the TSPA... that the Ulema must be encouraged to offer resistance.

Islam was never ideologicaly unhinged parasite - its ideology was calculated shrewdly to optimize extraction of biological resources from others. Today Muslims can move even an UN resolution to ban all and any criticism or critical analysis of its ideology, and they can hold an entire Indian state to ransom even though they are only 14% of the population and force the remaining 86% to sponsor its holy trips to Mecca. It will be a big mistake to dub historical Islamic behaviour as "ideologically unhinged" - it is shrewdly calculated to continue the extraction process. A good question is that there are hardly any economic calculations as to the cost of existence of TSP to India since its formation. I would love to start the financial calculations of the cost to India of "Islamic Jihad" in Kashmir but I would rather not since it will nicely play into the hands of those who try to say - its so much more beneficial for India to "give Kashmir up".

I think you misunderstand my use of the term "ideologically unhinged". Of course I do not mean demented or dysfunctional... if that had been the case, Islam would not have survived to this day.

By "ideologically unhinged" I mean incompatible with the economic sophistication necessary to create a civilization that is capable of actual constructive growth rather than predatory parasitism. That is something that Islam has never achieved. Islam has survived, and thrived by its own standards, only because it is expert at forcing or deceiving host cultures into a relationship of commensalism.

I would not attach undue importance to UN resolutions being tabled by Pakistan to place Islam beyond the reach of criticism... it doesn't take much to introduce a resolution, but for all their efforts (and all the OIC backing) the Pakistanis haven't got very far towards influencing the UN debate on J&K.

The minority votebank politics of India, likewise, have their roots in the Nehruvian accomodationist culture of governance that has unfortunately filled the vacuum left behind by British denudation of our true civilizational narrative. I suspect the Indian taxpayer's bankrolling of the Haj has more to do with such politics than any special Islamic skill at extortion-- if you call a goonda into your home and give him a knife and let him see where you keep your cash, you are substantially responsible for getting robbed. The Islamists for all their sound and fury could not make the French allow Hijab in public schools, or make the Dutch or Danish governments forfeit their citizens' rights to free expression. In Europe, only the United Queendom seems willing to go along with the extortion to any great extent.

I would applaud any effort made to tally the costs of Pakistan's Kashmir jihad to India. It is a sword that cuts both ways; if some could use those figures to justify giving up Kashmir, others could use them to make the case that Pakistan must be crippled by all necessary means, and justify the cost of employing those means. Still, there have been many major factors retarding India's ability to realize her economic potential that have nothing to do with Pakistan or Islamism. I doubt one could conclusively determine to what extent Pakistan has been responsible for holding back India's development, if at all.

This is why I say that it is better not to destroy the state structure of a nation like Pakistan, but let it remain hostage to a perpetual, debilitating struggle between the various centers of power within that state. Destroying the state structure from outside means that the legates have nothing to lose, and nothing to stand in the way of their regenerative capacity. A complete defeat of the TSPA/RAPE establishment equals complete victory for the ideological regenerative nuclei... and is simply not worth the expense of achieving it, because we will end up fighting new TSPA/RAPE establishments within a decade's time.

I have always, categorically stated that the main purpose of overthrowing the underlying Islamic state structure and occupy the territory under Indian authority, is to systematically root out and destroy the theologians and their networks. The underlying state protects the theologians - and this is why the state has to be destroyed first, but the task will not be complete unless it i sfollowed up by the liquidation of theologians and their networks. I think we differ on what we consider to be the TSP state and its base. .

I do not disagree with the idea that, if ever India did occupy the whole of Pakistan by military force, the entire exercise would be a waste if we didn't finish the job of eliminating the ideological regenerative nuclei... or as you put it, the theologians and their networks. However, to me, that seems like a very tall order to carry out in this day and age... even if we had all the resources available to the greatest power in the world.

Of the options that are currently open to us in practical terms, I do not see a better one than encouraging Fitna between the theologians and their protectors. What would happen, for instance, if we could successfully undermine the confidence of the theological networks in the capacity of the Islamic state structure to protect them?

It is a difficult equilibrium to maintain; weaken the state structure too little and we cannot undermine the confidence of the theologians in it. Weaken it too much, and the theologians themselves will be able to overthrow it easily, replacing it with a regenerated structure that suits their needs, and we are back to square one. Yet, I think it is within easier reach than administering a purge of Maoist or Stalinist proportions in a militarily occupied territory, against a consolidated resistance from all quarters of the erstwhile Islamic state.

[RamaY]

Brihaspati-ji,

Your vision for India sounds very much like my own vision for India.

It goes something like -

India stands for the spiritual and intellectual advancement of all humanity and strives towards making its just contribution towards this goal. It guarantees that no living being in this land is left hungry and unprotected. All its citizens will have equal rights and the law of the land is supreme. India strives for military excellence so that it can protect the values India stands for and no other nation/group can threaten its interests at home or abroad. Bharatiya Sanatana Dharma (samskriti) is its national treasure and will be protected at all costs.

Should India strive to be a "big-boy"?
This question has two angles to it – One is the Right Vs wrong, which you covered.
The second angle is does it have the capacity and maturity to be a big-boy. The strategies will have to change based upon the nations current and projected power prognosis.

What should be the composition of Strategic leadership for the future of India?
I think it is necessary to have a definition of strategic leadership. For example, Independent India got the current set of leadership that is doing its best to realize the vision it set for India. It is a different question if some of us agree with it or not. If properly planned, groomed and defined, such a strategic leadership (a pool if you will) will ensure that any threat to its vision is stopped and destroyed. Take a look at the way the current leadership is destroying other state institutions in order to protect its interests/vision.

What strategies it can follow to take each of the above ‘interest’ groups with it?
You answered it partially. I agree that any adverse leadership must be weeded out. At the same time, the future leadership must define and offer the means for the estranged citizenry to come back to the Bharatiya cultural fold. Only then the vision of its national unification can be achieved.

[shiv]

discarding traditional values without understanding why.

ramana there is a huge mixed bag here whose complexity gets hidden by a partially correct statement that traditional values are being discarded without knowing why.

I will attempt to list some of the elements that I can think of which are retained or discarded traditional values which contribute to confusion and ignorance

1) While Vedic "Hinduism" is promoted as "traditional value" - it ignores huge aspects of "Hindu" (Indic) culture that did not get a mention in Vedic Hinduism but was nevertheless never disputed or sought to be wiped out by Vedic Hinduism. Beef eating is bemoaned as a loss of Hindu culture - but this is complete nonsense. A whole subset of Hindus do eat beef. It is ignorance of the latter fact that makes rigid moralists in a diverse society.

2) I have recently heard that the tradition of wearing a sari being bemoaned as a tradition that is being lost and well as the Christian influences that are causing girls to wear revealing dresses.. That is another confabulated fragment of nonsense which also ignores the topless modes of dress as well as sexy skirts worn by perfectly Hindu and Indic tribes such as Bastars, Santhals - the Banjaras and many others

3) When it comes to true Vedic traditions - many of them are intense and profound and require deep discipline and training. They were never ever "widespread" and used by the hoi polloi. But what did become widespread was a parody of Vedic ritual in which the meaning has been lost for a long time - but the romance that the "old days were great" has been retained - giving a sense of loss. That loss cannot be addressed by coercion because Vedic knowledge and ritual is an intense art which will always only be practised properly by a few. Perhaps at one time in history all those who managed this were called "Brahmin" and Brahmins really were exclusive because their knowledge and art was not by virtue of birth but by virtue of discipline and hard work.

So is it really lost or being lost? For example take the Gayatri mantra. In some Brahmin traditions it was a profound impartation of a fundamental Indic truth. In my family it was always to be whispered by father into the ear of son during his Hindu bar-mitzvah. Its meaning is to be realized. Blurting it out in a recording is meaningless. But we now have the Gayatri mantra being recited endlessly and mindlessly via programmed computer chips. Is this loss or gain?

I think that when we speak of loss of tradition we must be very careful about whether we are clinging on to something as "tradition" without insight, and what traditions are relevant to the time. Indian culture has "seen" 4000 plus years. A simple caclulation will tell us that 100 years spans approximately 3 generations - so we are looking at at least 120 generations of strife, war, famine, genocide, love, abundance, glory, peace, tranquility, joy and sorrow. A culture that has come down so far cannot be pinned down by simplistic explanations and definitions.

Someone needs to write "My grandfather' grandfather's grandfather's.......grandfather" 40 times to understand what that means. Where else do you find any tradition lasting that long?

[RamaY]

Shiv-ji,

You could be correct in that Islam is a spent force and is in its last phase. Even then, the nation will have some task at hand.

Irrespective of whether Islam chooses a peaceful evolution process or a violent end, it will have significant impact on Indian strategic future. Therefore, it is in the best interests of our culture and nation that we offer creative solutions to end its bigotry.

We can either selectively destroy its virulent leadership or offer asylum to its confused masses in Hinduism’s fold without caring for its leadership. If sanitized, Islam can be a form of Bhakti moment where the followers offer unquestioned devotion (with their own rituals and mudras) without any need for salvation. The end of devotion is the promise of swarga-sukhas. Alternatively, we can do both at the same time to achieve quick and permanent outcome.

In order to move in that direction, our nation needs to reach a consensus on the problem itself. I tend to believe that the problem is with the ideology and it has to be destroyed without remorse. You seem to propose that only the leadership is virulent and masses are scared and looking for help. If correct, your hypothesis has a better chance of solving this problem.

Once there is consensus on the problem and solution strategies, we would need suitable leadership to implement that strategy. This leadership should have protection from retributions from both sides, and blessing of native culture.

That said, I agree that Hinduism itself has its own set of problems to solve. The only bright side is that correcting Hinduism will not require force and its roots are well preserved by this nation (to use your word) in terms of culture and traditions. A sense of purpose and pride mixed up with proper education will bring the true Sanatana Dharma back on to centre stage.

Santi Santi Santihi!

[brihaspati]

Rahul Mehta wrote
And if push comes to shove, US will kill/maime EVERY young man in Middle East, You can fight much with a limb gone. Or US will imprison every young man, just as Italians had "imprisoned" over 20% of population in Libya in 1930s in camps, where in there beaten and raped endlessly.

After defeat and capture of all oil well, when supply of basic medicine and food decreases, the death rate, infant death rate and pregnancy mortality will climb and so growth rate in islamic countries will become negative. And then the only weapon they have, population , too will get blunted.

I would also build in the possible role and intervention of Russia and PRC if they see this happeneing under US watch. Moreover, US is always way too flexible in its strategic thinking to be consistent over very long periods. A sufficiently irritating loss of US lives would be pressure enough for them desist. I am not saying that the scenario painted is impossible, but it could get substantially modified or reversed in reality.

As for Shivji's comments:

I don't think many dispute that the IM appears to be largely defeated. But when we talk loosely of IM we bracket all into the same category and oversimplify. Because the large majority of IM appear to have no direct consequence on the lives of the "Hindus", IM as a whole appears to be defeated. But the IM is not a homogeneous mass - it has its passive "born intos" and its "active" "mini-messengers", it has its theologians. If there is one damage that Marx has done, it is teaching all to speak of broad abstract categories of populations that exists in the mind of the commentator but not in reality. Marx probably also gave us the fatal misconception or rather misrepresentation that political and state power is equal to the number of people supporting or sharing that power. Most of the time the question of power is not determined by the apparent strength of numbers but by a happy combination of two factors - the existence of a determined minority obsessively and paranoidly seeking power, and the majority sufficiently indifferent or cautious not to oppose this determined minority.

On the one hand Shivji, and others of similar view are most accurate in indentifying the apparently "defeated" IM- this is the "majority" suffiiciently indifferent or cautious. But bracketing the entire IM as this single "defeated" category could be a major mistake, as then it removes from our consideration the possible existence of the determined minority obsessively seeking power. The more really "defeated" flat-out burnt-out the common IM is the more vulnerable it is once again to mobilization by the determined minority, in this case their theologians. I agree that the common "Hindutvavadi" chooses the easier route for mobilization of "majority anger" by focusing without distinction on all IM. But all along I have saying that we need to have amore subtle approach, by which we keep on trying to empower and "win over" the common IM to the Indic side, and such winning over need not always have to be the "begging bowl" method, and can very well be a combination of covert "ideological coercion" as well "overt pleasantries". But at the same time we decosntruct and destroy the ideological basis of the authority and power of the "determined minority" - for the very defeat and apparent "passivity" of the common IM lends them more conveninet for mobilization by the theologians - especially since the "Hindus" have not been allowed or taken the initiative to reintegrate them back to the Indic fold.

Since this question of "Islmic contribution" comes up repeatedly, maybe we should start actually exploring how much and what exactly has the "Islamic" contributed to the Indic. I have searched wide, and I have indeed interacted with IM families across the spectrum - the only conspicuous contributions I found were donations in certain aspects of cooking, clothing and vocabulary - then again as expected the donations were more prominent among elite "Hindu" usage than the "non-elite Hindu". As far as social practices are concerned, that would be a most complex issue and subject to multiple and alternative interpretations. But this is an issue OT for this thread. Until that project is complete, however, I do not see it as unreasonable to pose the question about what is Indic and what is non-Indic, for I feel that a lot of our past retreats happened because we could not separate "us" from "them", which paralyzed us in action. It is not about "revenge", but being careful about repeating "mistakes".

Overlaps with the common IM is not just a matter of "desirability" but a part of strategic necessity - just as important it is to separate the head from the body - and disjunction as much as possible from the "leadership" of the IM.

[shiv]

You seem to propose that only the leadership is virulent and masses are scared and looking for help. If correct, your hypothesis has a better chance of solving this problem.

On a fundamental level you have accurately summarized my thoughts. But reality is not that simple. Muslim society in India ranges from the pale-saffron-green totally Indic Muslim to the Talibanic fundamentalist. It is the structure of islamic society that the latter tend to be "leadership" and the former the led.

We have to draw a line between the two.

Hindu "secularism" seems to believe that dealing firmly with the Talibanic Indian fundamentalist will somehow make the pale-saffron green Muslim unhappy. This is an offshoot of the Idea of Pakistan. Now guess whom this delusional viewpoint suits?

We have to understand that it is not about Islam but about people and a way of living. That way of living can allow Islam as a private way of life, but not as a general dictator of morality or laws. A whole lot of Muslims are actually quite happy with this compromise. We need to acknowledge them and make way for them just as much as we clamp down on disruptors of Indian society.

Talibanic fundamentalists will always claim that Islam cannot be restricted to a private view of a few, but the politics of a diverse society must ensure that they join and not fight. Hindus need confidence and guts to speak this way and not the cowardly "We have lost and need to regain" mentality.

That Hindu mentality is the exact obverse or "negative image" of the mentality of "Hans ke liye Pakistan, Lad ke lenge Hindustan" (We laughed as we got Pakistan easily. We will now fight and take India)

[shiv]

. But bracketing the entire IM as this single "defeated" category could be a major mistake, as then it removes from our consideration the possible existence of the determined minority obsessively seeking power. The more really "defeated" flat-out burnt-out the common IM is the more vulnerable it is once again to mobilization by the determined minority, in this case their theologians.

Brihaspati I have addressed my view on this in my reply to RamaY above, but I have quoted your post here for a specific reason

You say:

The more really "defeated" flat-out burnt-out the common IM is the more vulnerable it is once again to mobilization by the determined minority, in this case their theologians

Absolutely. But they can also be influenced by others. Influencing can mean helping to join rather than pushing away by causing fear. This group needs to be pulled in and not pushed into the arms of the theologians.

The biggest bluff that Islam has played on the Hindu is the bluff that all Muslims en bloc love their theologians and that they seek to follow them blindly. They will follow other paths provided the are given the right alternatives.

The biggest error made by "secular" India is to club the defeated Muslim and the rabid theologian as one and assume that putting strictures on the rabid theologian would hurt and alienate the defeated Muslim. This is exactly the impression the theologian wants to create. In pre independence India the theologians would create events such a s direct action day to prove a point. That is no longer possible.

Hindutvadis have been only slightly better than the secularists here. Hindutvadis have been quick to see the mistakes of the seculars in giving sops to theologians imagining that they were giving benefits to the defeated Muslims. But Hindutvadis fail in that their grassroots support comes from people who see Islam as conqueror and not as conquered.

Bring the theologian around and the rest will follow. Don't waste time fighting the entire community.

[Rudradev]

...

India still represents India and its ability to absorb and adapt without really throwing anything away like a bigoted ideologue born from a featureless dry sand-dune. What bothers me is that the rigid and bigoted thought process of Islam has been absorbed by some people who call themselves "Hindus" What is then applied by Hindutva is not the Indic style of analysis but the Islamic style of "recognizing and discriminating against the other"
...

Shiv, I wish that post could be turned into an Op-Ed and broadcast to every Indian via every available medium.

I find the ideas articulated therein, very appealing. Very promising too, as they seem to suggest a way to get beyond our current situation, even if the specifics aren't immediately clear. That's why it should be circulated as widely as possible... it's inspirational, and the more minds cranking on this fodder, the sooner we'll find our path. Somewhere in there is the germ of an answer.

And of course, on the plane of detached intellectual analysis I find it very hard to argue with anything in there. But yet... yet, on the empirical plane there are things that bother me still. Since I cannot at this point, couch those concerns as direct refutations of the ideas expressed in your post, let me try to do so with a parable.

****

OK, so I live in this nice house and try to raise a good family. I have worked hard and I'm slowly reaping the rewards of diligence. I live by the values of my ancestors, and I've acquired the skills to compete successfully in the modern world. Things are looking up. I'm not on top of the world yet, but as they say, the sky's the limit. In the game of life, by all the yardsticks that mean something to decent folks, I'm winning.

There's just one problem. Ha, ha. Don't know if I can even call him a problem, poor fellow. The neighbourhood.... you know, he's not quite right... what to say... schizophrenic.

Bug eyed, clothed in vomit-encrusted rags, sleeps on the pavement, stinks like a goat. Hasn't done an honest day's work in his life but what to say, he's mentally disabled, poor chap. Doesn't get along with anybody in town, really, but for whatever reason, he seems to have taken a special dislike to me and my house.

Now how can I fight with, or "compete" with a guy like this? He's crazy. He's as defeated as anybody can possibly be by life... no money, no friends, no home, no family, no wits. But he doesn't know it! No loss... no deprivation of material goods, dignity or even physical well being... means anything to him. No matter what the setback, he simply convinces himself that actually he has won, or is winning. How can you tell a madcap any differently?

Not that he doesn't harbour grievances and ideas of "defeat to be avenged". He thinks he is the rightful owner my house, and that I have somehow tricked him out of it. Total bloody nuisance he makes of himself. Every few days he comes and defecates in my garden. I shout at him. I call the police and he runs away. A few times I caught him and gave him a thrashing. But a few days later, there he is again... pants around his ankles, squatting on my lawn, shouting "Allah Hu Akbar"!

It's getting worse than that too. Last week he exposed himself to my daughter. I called the police. They locked him up for a couple of days but then released him. No budget to indefinitely confine such a hopeless case, they say. Privately, I think the city council themselves don't like me very much... they are jealous of my success at a young age...so they feel secretly happy to see me getting so much grief from this guy. That's why they feed him for free at the soup kitchen every night, and give him blankets every winter, and never keep him in jail long enough to deter him from causing problems for me.

So what can I do? I can just run out on the lawn shouting at him every time I see him, and circumvent the piles of feces he leaves everywhere in the garden. I can catch him and slap him sometimes, but that only assuages my anger temporarily, and in the long run it goads him to provoke me even more. So I try to ignore it, be a big man about it, concentrate on the important things in life like buying a new car and securing a promotion at my job.

But what good are these things when the presence of this madman, and his relentless defecation, are driving down the value of my property? What good is it to provide for my family when my daughter is terrified to walk home after dark lest he expose himself to her again? How can I ensure a truly secure home when this defeated madman is always lurking around out there? True, he has never actually caused major physical harm to anybody yet, but the thing is, he is mad, and he hates me, and he thinks that every little indignity he inflicts upon me is a great victory for him. You never know what people like that may be capable of tomorrow.

I have thought sometimes that the next time I won't slap him... I will just take a shovel to the back of his head. Put him out of his misery, poor chap... what does he have to live for anyway? But that's against the law of course. The same cops who treat this madcap with such humane indulgence, will be right over to arrest me for murder, and I'll lose everything that I have worked for.

So while there's little question that this madcap has been defeated in the game of life... whether he realizes it or not... the problem is that I find myself wondering if I'm actually winning at all.

[Atri]

Rudradev Ji,

you are forgetting one fliend of your mad neighbour which is your neighbour too.. that neighbour helps this mad neighbour to contain you. and the neighbour who is helping this mad neighbour is comparatively more organised and powerful that you are. So he is instigating some other small-time neighbours of yours to disobey you and give some pain in your a$$..

your mad neighbour seems like a dog chasing a car.. dog chases cars just for the sake of it.. if he actually gets a car after chase, he won't know what to do with it.. perhaps he will pee and poo all over the captured car and then run after some other car.. this irrepressible desire of this dog to chase the cars is his the source of his greatest strength and greatest weakness.. it is the sole reason of his existence and deeds.. something that he gets while the chase... he will like it until the chase is on.. if chase is over, he will loose the interest... because, without car, there is no reason for dog to exist...

The only option is shoot the mad neighbour in head and then be ready to face some hulla-gulla by city council. Hulla-gulla can be managed. But just make sure that the other neighbour of yours who helps this mad neighbour against you is somehow neutralized. Or else shit will hit the fan.. Law rests in hands of powerful.. if you are powerful, you can make city council an offer they cannot refuse.. Until you become powerful it is your karma that you suffer... because, the reason of that mad neighbour's existence is some bad karma of your own ancestors.. what goes by comes by.. just that you are paying for deeds (or lack of them) of your ancestors... when they had chance, they did not kill his ancestors, nor did they cure him (his ancestors).. they treated him (them) like untouchable and kept shying away from him appeasing him, mollifying him...

wait for the right moment and shoot in the head of that son of a bitch from point blank range.. Until then, increase your power and keep on pinching that mad neighbour.. you have big family, you can devote few members to harass your neighbour in all sorts of ways.. allow your kids to close the water taps to his home.. allow them to cut the electricity wires to his home... allow them to throw mud at his face every now and then.. don't scold your kids... let them have total fun with this guy... if he tries to hurt your kids, protect them.. they are children onlee.. Invite his women folk to your home and make them friends with your women folk.. kitty parties under strict vigilance of your watchman with his women folk and children..

know that he has few children who take pleasure in harassing the mad guy.. make sure that your kids are great friends with those rebel kids in his house.... differentiate between mad man and his family... mad man is beyond redemption.. few of his wives and children are beyond redemption.. but not all... the more you can salvage, the better for your extended family in future...

When the time comes of actual shooting, make sure it is swift and complete. Don't be slow and create scene.. the more time you take, the more scene you create, the mad guy slips outta your hand.. city council will rush to stop you guys from starting to shoot... create scene when you don't have any plans to kill.. when you have made up your mind for a kill, don't create scene.. no bol-bachchan.. just do it...

[Yusuf]

Talking about leadership in general, wonder what went through Varun Gandhis mind when he said what he said during his campaign in Pilibhit. First thing is that such thoughts coming out from the clan he belongs to is shocking, second he forgot the model code of conduct.

Is this the kind of leadership he is going to provide?

[Aditya_V]

No one knows why Varun Ghandi made such a bunch of foolish comments, if he keeps those comments up he will soon be in political wilderness.

[Shankk]

I was actually thinking of creating another thread but meanwhile stumbled upon this one so will write here. Main idea of that thread was "Root Cause Problem in India - Quagmire of Religion and Population"

There were two distinct items in my mind for this as described below:

1. How religion is the cause of population explosion which is hampering India's rise and aspirations.

2. Reforms in India requires reforms in Hinduism - A case against polytheism.

Religion is the cause of population explosion in India

Religion in general is discussed here at length with different angles to which I will add one more specially because people do not readily accept it. Although details apply to all religions I will limit the discussion to three major religions - Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. First of all my opinion about religion is that it is a human construct. All this hooplah about the book or messenger of god is just that and is bogus. This includes books like Vedas, Bible and Koran, messengers like Christ or Mohammad and gods like Ram or Krishna. I am not denying their existance (neither corroborating it) but any god like or greater than human characteristics attributed to them is just human creation.

Moving from abstract to something real, this concept of religion is screwing India due to the emotional stake people have developed in it. This country is home to scores of people belonging to different religions but each religion is in a competition to outdo the other and gain more followers which is leading to population explosion. There is no compunction amongst Muslims and Christians on how their religions is the only right way and needs to be propagated by any means. Islam first resorted to violence and now taking refuge in demographic change. Christianity is using any available trick to get more followers. Hindus are responding to it by breeding more and more and at the same time refusing to make required changes to defend itself other than breeding.

Most interesting thing is all these religions vehemently deny doing this or anything wrong. This explosion in population is causing havoc in India and is a hindrance in rise of India.

Muslims are living in an ecstacy with a delusion that someday Islam will be the largest and most dominant religion in the world. Their way to reach this goal is through massive over breeding but they do not realize that if the world feel threatened enough then there will be a merciless response and they will be at the recieving end. Meanwhile they are mindlessly adding to the already huge population of India. Educated muslims understand the danger but are helpless and scared of retribution.

Christians have different tactics and they use saam, daam, dand, bhed and anything else possible to attract more followers. Their premise is that they are rescusing people from darkness and helping them by showing right path. Educated Christians know and understand that it is not the real reason but rather a means to consolidate Church's hold on people. They may not mind it if it doesn't hurt them.

Both these religions do not realize that they are not rescuing Hindus by converting or over breeding them. Hindus will retaliate as they always have and the end result will be equally bad for newly minted Christians and Muslims. One Hindu converted to Christianity resulting in two births of Hindus while five Muslims are born to increase their number will collectively make life miserable for all eigth Indians. They all will be competing for same limited resources.
Moreover many solutions to improve people's lifestyle simply cannot be applied due to huge population. This huge population demands more resources to execute solutions and that adds to the poverty of nation as a whole due to depleted resources. Anyway there is no need to elaborate more on this as everybody is aware of negative impact of polulation explosion in India.

Already this post is long enough so will elaborate about the change in Hindusim alluded earlier (second point above) in next post.

[Shankk]

Reforms in India requires reforms in Hinduism - A case against polytheism

I have not studied Islam or Christianity so will refrain from suggesting any changes in them rather Will limit myself to noticing their impact on the problems in India. I have neither studied Hinduism but at least I have a perspective on it by virtue of practising it.

Largest chunk of population in India are Hindus so obviously they should share greater blame for India's problems and weaknesses and also get more credit for India's achievements. Hence to make any visible change in India it is important to change Hinduism. There are many aspects involved in here perticularly due to the very open nature of Hinduism but I will restrict focus more on polytheism here.

It is my very humble opinion that the concept of polytheism has caused more damage to Hinduism and India. As a concept it is not really bad rather is good to allow people to co-exist. Unfortunately it works only if majority of people agree to it. It worked really nicely ealier in the absence of competing religions but now given the exclusive nature of Islam and Christianity it is difficult to cling onto it anymore.

This concept of accepting anything and everything has allowed and fostered so many fissures in Hinduism that it has rendered Hindus as a bunch of squabbling lambs only to be preyed by the predators. The lack of unity in Hindus is due to the lack of any common binding force on them. Whether you like it or not such a common force has been proven successful by Islam and Christianity. I am not talking about utopia of homogeneous group of Hindus (neither Islam nor Christianity could achieve it) but what Hindus are now is actually exactly very opposite of that utopia.

Since the lack of any formal study of Hinduism I will stick to anecdotes. I am currently reading a book by one of the saint that gives me extreme satisfaction and peace of mind from the pulls and effects of this mean material world. Everything is fine except the advice he gave in the book to recite naam. Thats where the polytheism comes in my way. I have been praying and following to only few perticular gods although I accept, respect and pray to other gods when in temple. This creates a predicament that keeps me away from truly and entirely following what that saint has said. Theoretically I understand all gods are same and I can pray to anyone but still it keeps nagging me that I am not following what he exactly said (recite naam of one particular god). I wished Hinduism had only god and everybody would be referring to him. Another example is temples particularly outside India. One Hindu temple tries to stuff all the gods and it makes me rather uncomfortable to not pray to some gods and irritates me to pray to all of them. Particularly when I don't even know which god I am praying and thus having no feeling or attachment.

I know these are trivial complaints but it lead me to think of polytheism as a possible reason why Hindus lack the kind of unity that other religions have. How many countries have taken invaders and attacks for such a long period like Hindus have? What spearates India and Hindus from other nations or religious groups? Recently there was so much angst over non response of India to Pakistan over Mumbai attacks? Reason? Hindus are not united. Hindus are not afraid of loosing their life neither are they any more peace loving than Muslims or Christians. Unfortunately there is simply no conensus amongst them to take action against Pakistan.

With the permission to so many point of views it is no wonder that Hindus which forms majority of Indians fails to do anything in unision. After all we know about opinions and how everybody has one. Result of everybody having their version of solution translates into unmanageable competition amongst rival solutions that result in increasing the cost and time of executing the solution.

It is getting really late now so I will wind up here but it is not complete. There is no alternative suggested here like if Polytheism is bad then what is the solution? Hopefully I will get time to put forward more thoughts and examples of how polytheism is working against getting people together and act together.

[joshvajohn]

I may be writing something different from the previous posts.

Lalu Prasad Yadav can provide a good strategic leadership for India in the next Parliament. In spite of his fun he knows how to make business out of small villages in India and make the railway into a successful business and cheap and make it available for maximum use by the public. These are all the liberalisation values with a strong human face. He has understood the way to do business in the world and at the same time knows the people at grassroots in spite of his funs and problems.


Being a united India, I do not think the polytheism in Hinduism is a problem. Rather it is an advantage of uniting people. I wish to highlight two things here. One is there is no proper study of Hinduism in its varieties in India. Having studied Hindu texts in Sanskrit I find it facinating to understand the importance of the philosophical schools in various texts and beliefs. But then one has to study not only the sanskrit texts but also other texts of Saiva Sidhdhantha and other local Hindu texts in other languages too in order to develop a dialogue within many versions or denominations of Hinduism itself. Even the Tribal and Dalits versions such as seven mother goddesses in Telugu traditions have to be studied clearly. Such knowledge should be made available for the public through many forms.

Many of these traditions have survived through story telling but unfortunately many stories are sidelined by the Ramayana and Mahabharatha kind of puranas dominating the tv and other books. Hindu stories need to be revived and make it relevant to the people today. There is also a need for spreading a social reforming understanding of Hinduism such as Ramakrishna mission and so on. People should be encouraged to share their wealths with their own poor communities. India nowadays has a few richest people in the world. They go to other countries and donate for charties in millions of dollars. I do not know why they are not able to do this in India itself?!! Such motives have to be developed within the Hindu religious faith which will reduce other influences.

I write this as an outsider to Hindu religion with a lot of care for every religion to be on its own and make human beings better human beings.

[Sanku]

@above
Lalu Prasad's able management is best held testimony to by Bihar -- ask any Bihari.

He makes Mayawati look like divine mother in comparison.

As to success with railways -- the current CAG report on the state of the railway tells all -- the price for his railway mismanagement will be borne by the next minister -- which has been given a railway with quality and safety standards dropping and compromised; no long term investment made on basic infrastructure and overloading of existing routes for a quick buck under tatkal.

The fin min is not the only one cooking books when they show a profit or less than expected fiscal deficit.

[Yusuf]

Accidents have been the least during Lalus tenure compared to others. Railways is making profit. They are trying to improve conditions. Im just back from Kolkata by train, they had a feedback form for the service offered. Never saw that before. He is utilizing available infrastructure to the max and is making profit from it. Whats wrong. Besides he has made changes in procurement policy which is helping as well.

[Sanku]

Please read the CAGs report -- one "feedback" form hardly constitutes the improvement in service.

Its a open secret that the tender contracts for food in trains are being "sold" to the highest bidder -- on complaining about food in the train -- you get to hear "we have paid money, this is what you will get do what ever you want"

The full extent of Lalu's escapades take time for people to realize -- Bihar nearly turned to hell before it was pulled back from precipice slowly.

He is clever I will grant you that.

[shiv]

Frankly folks - I personally have no problem with Laloo or even Mayawati as PM. I worry about the Karats and the Gowdas.

[brihaspati]

Shankkji,

A social category will flourish if it is advantageous for people to belong to that category. The driving engine behind religion promoted population growth, comes primarily because Indian state explicitly gives advantages in belonging to specific religions. If the laws were such that there was no advantage, in fact perhaps disadvantgeous to be a Muslim or a Christian then this trend would not be there. By protecting and recognizing these religions' special rights over their communities over and above that of the state this provides political, economic and social advantages for the elite or leadership of these religions.

The Indian state has compromised its authority over the crucial aspects of national structure, education, and civil law. This is where the state should take its authority back from religions.

The other crucial problem is not really polytheism. There is always a tendency for the human mind to try and simplify models of external phenomena and the general policy is to pose a simplified abstraction of a much more complex real phenomenon. This is how the complexity of earthly processes was sought to be initially explained by the model of a "God" or "Gods". The same happens with large complex societies, which have probably evolved to collectively optimize values or entities of importance. But the individual in that society sees an inexorable machine that appears to drive evrything and everybody around and decides that the best approximation is that of some "universal social law" or a "mahadhamma" or the "conscious will of a superhuman suprahuman" that drives all. This leads to the possible mechanism for voluntary conversion - a more complex model needing more mental computations is likely to be rejected in favour of a simpler model needing less mental exertion - a possible attractive feature of "monotheism" over "polytheism".

But here a crucial point is being missed - the gain in simplification will only be apparent to those who were previously used to the higher complexity. This implies it is the intellectual elite who are more likely to be motivated by this argument. In all religions, from their inception or formalization, we see that the vast majority very quickly simplify the religion according to their own levels. There is also the question of inertia - people are not really going to learn a new thing if it means additional work over and above what they have already learned without offsets in advantages - saving the skin, life, property, women, power. A reasonable hypothesis for India is that becuase of perhaps one of the major areas of human refuge and continuously occupied resource base for modern human expansion and survival, ideologies or philosophies/world views show a pehnomenon very similar to that observable in paleogenetics. That is greatest diversity from genetic drift is seen at the region of origin, and lesser diversity as the genes travel outward. For the common "Hindu" or the common Muslim or the common Christian, practices are not much different from each other in reality in terms of complexity. It is the elite of each which has problems with each other that has to be bolstered by sharpening and reconstructing identities according to their own needs. Give the common Indian a state that removes religious leadership from in between them and the state, and a collective sigh of relief will be heard with thunderous breath.

Sometimes, we need leadership from a section of the society that is firm enough to deal with its own elite in favour of its commons, so that the entire section survives and strengthens and even the elite itself benefits in the future.

[brihaspati]

joshvajohn wrote
Being a united India, I do not think the polytheism in Hinduism is a problem. Rather it is an advantage of uniting people. I wish to highlight two things here. One is there is no proper study of Hinduism in its varieties in India. Having studied Hindu texts in Sanskrit I find it facinating to understand the importance of the philosophical schools in various texts and beliefs. But then one has to study not only the sanskrit texts but also other texts of Saiva Sidhdhantha and other local Hindu texts in other languages too in order to develop a dialogue within many versions or denominations of Hinduism itself. Even the Tribal and Dalits versions such as seven mother goddesses in Telugu traditions have to be studied clearly. Such knowledge should be made available for the public through many forms.

Agree wholeheartedly. Actually such a study reveals that the local and "central" have cross-fertilized each other to form the "federal" - it comes up more strikingly if people go out and experience the "locals" in person. And such a cross-study also immediately shows why the revealed traditions have to modify and adapt a lot to become a part of this federal if they at all want to survive without state apparatus support.

[RamaY]

Shankk

I do not like comparing abrahamic religions with Indic religions. We have had plenty of discussion on this before and you can find a treasure of ideas in the archives.

In my response to Keshav-ji’s post, I explained the rationale of a nation-state for associating with the native culture. Assuming religion is a human construct and removing it from strategic analysis is less-complex approach. However, I doubt it is the panacea for a strong society, a nation state in the modern sense. Let me explain:

Let us assume a particular governance system removes all streaks of culture (or whatever you want to call it) from its philosophy, outlook and execution. For the sake of academic analysis, we can compare it to a modern corporate governance modal.

We can see a partial implementation of this philosophy in modern economies and in communist governance models. While there definitely are some advantages, the long term impact of this non-cultural approach to nation building has serious ramifications. That is why even large corporations and communist countries try to build a distinct culture for their societies. Cultures build cohesion among its populace and increases productivity and creates happy societies. Grooming a right culture is very very important for long lasting societies.

A well defined nation state will live for thousands of years or forever. Nation states built upon some half-cooked ideology are bound to fail within few generations and there are plenty of examples around us.

This thread is meant to discuss the strategic future of Indian subcontinent. A strategic analysis that does not take the native culture and psych of people in to consideration will not be complete and cannot offer sound solutions. Culture is as important as demographics, geography, internal and external trade, military, governance system, and leadership in strategic analysis.

[brihaspati]

To RamaYji and Shankkji,

when I started these two threads on "strategic future" there was quite a bit of bashing up about introducing and endorsing "discussions on religion". However I insisted on traveling the middle road, where we do recognize the problem of "religion" as obstruction or helpful towards national consolidation. My conclusions in various posts has been that the foundation of the national consolidation has to be the Indic.We have discussed also threadbare how to try and recognize the Indic from the non-Indic.

My principle is that we should be careful in trying to reconstruct the "cultural basis" of the Indic, all the while recognizing the need to have a much deeper exploration and understanding of the processes that led to what we now see as the "Bharatyia/Indic". We might have taken on certain aspects of the Abrahamic, either becuase they appeared attractive to a dominant section or in reaction against the Abrahamic. Both should be identified if possible and kept or rejected depending on their relevance for the modern time.

Ultimately, I hold that the Upanishads clearly take the position essentially of the modern scientific method - explore, hypothesize, examine the evidence, reformulate your hyothesis, and test again, and come to a past understanding repeatedly again in the future to requestion and re-explore. This is not the "loka-dharma", whic is much more prescriptive and rule-based out of necessity and is as much part of the Bharatyia as the Upanishadic. We can compare this to the role of the two halves of our brain - one half persists in its model and is the conservative one, and the other half changes paradigms and is the visionary one. The brain needs both. For mnost of the time, the "conservative" runs the show and keeps flights of fancy from the "visionary" in check so that the brain is not pulled apart to destruction, and saves the body through time tested methods. However when the brain and body faces extraordinary experiences and circumstances, it is the visionary half that changes the paradigms overnight and if appropriate this new model then overrules and is accepted by the "conservative". The same framework can work for the body-politic of the Bharatyia.

Ultimately, the trends appear to be moving towards RamaYjis' desire. I would be slightly uncomfortable if it does not allow the "visionary" element to re-examine and change paradigms if necessary. For example I would be delighted to see both RamaYji and Shankkji to join hands together in such an exploration and enrich us with ideological "leadership".

[brihaspati]

Some time agao I had speculated on where was "sky/rain god" being hidden in preparation for "covering up" the "face of moon". It seems "sky god" has burst wide open in rain. But my assessment of him as having more "material" inside than his airhead cousin remains. He has yet to obtain the maturity of holding his tongue in. But I admire his courage in being able to give the call for "Hindu consolidation". But I have this uncanny feeling that his entire life would be burdened by the shadow of the "infamous" family name he bears, and something that will not allow him to be put in the forefront. A great potential for "strategic leadership" but at this stage probably showing the limitations the family has always worked under.

[Keshav]

For a discussion about Islamic innovation and engineering, you should probably look at the well-sourced Wikipedia articles. This is in response to the talk about medieval Islamic kingdoms and their achievements as viable nation states. The extra information concerning the agricultural revolution and its effects on nation building should prove useful:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Agr ... Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_go ... Golden_Age

A well defined nation state will live for thousands of years or forever. Nation states built upon some half-cooked ideology are bound to fail within few generations and there are plenty of examples around us.

This thread is meant to discuss the strategic future of Indian subcontinent. A strategic analysis that does not take the native culture and psych of people in to consideration will not be complete and cannot offer sound solutions. Culture is as important as demographics, geography, internal and external trade, military, governance system, and leadership in strategic analysis.

Nothing will live forever, but Pakistan is a good example of a failed nation-state.

Just to respond, though: it is impossible to remove culture competely from the thinking of a people, which is why Communism always molds itself to each area for each specific need i.e. Naxalites. One can be as logical as possible, but the final decision will always be a product of your upbringing.

[ramana]

Keshav, Take a look at Non-Western World view for my latest post!

[brihaspati]

Keshavji, these references are primarily based on materials as seen by the western chroniclers or their Islamic counterparts' claims. The Muslims alsmost never acknowledge their knowledge debt from other cultures, and pass on everything as being developed by themselves. It is dishonest and politically motivated to attribute all these innovations to the "Islamic" alone. Rather these should be seen as copy and adaptation of technologies and knowledge base of conquered cultures - the water-wheel and mill was there in pre-Islamic mesopotamia and Persia, the hydrostatics and hydrological innovations were quite sophistatcated far before the Islamic, and the Islamic chroniclers express universal surprise about the levels of technology, agricultural diversity and sophistication and knowledge base when they start writing about the subcontinent. Obviously these things were missing in their own culture at the time.

These are probably examples of how we are made to believe that the Indic has components from the Abrahamic in all aspects of our culture, even in science, innovation and knowledge. And then again a crucial reason as to why we need to be careful about distinguishing the Indic from the non-Indic, for such "contributions" can be used as a front toe stablish the legitimacy of the "ideology" itself. The "followers" are descendants of "Indians", at least from "Indian mothers" therefore our "cousins", and they are part and parcel of "us", but not their ideology.

[Keshav]

Brihaspati -
I understand that all claims to fantastic innovation from pre-modern times should be taken with a grain of salt but I'm not going to let an Indic bias get in the way of giving those who deserve some appreciation. You do not want to be a Thaparite for another history other than your own. When someone presents you with evidence, you should study it and accept what needs to be accepted. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the entire article can't all just be self-praise.

Keshav, Take a look at Non-Western World view for my latest post!

I saw it. Things like that always fascinate me and it makes you wonder who is making what right now that people will look back on years later and say "That's just a conspiracy, that's a recent invention!".

It also makes wonder what could have been done if the Mauryan times had continued - more Kalidasas, more Aryabhats, more Chanakyas, and more Nalandas and Takshilas. Not to say that we know everything about our medieval past but far too often we end up writing about this battle or that battle instead of the art, sciences, and literature of the period.

Maybe we should make an arts thread that specifically talks about progression of art, sciences, and literature throughout Indian history.

[brihaspati]

I have really strong issues in Islamic claims based on which western scholars present their "impeccable" "evidence" - after all these are only interpretations and reliance on some narrative claims. Islamic scholarship passes off mathematical and astronomical innovations as their own at a much later period than the same appears to have been described in Indian texts.

All these western studies rely on what reached them through Islamic scholarship, and it is better not to dismiss scepticism aout the basis of such scholarship or compare such scepticism with being a "Thaparite" trying to rob the Islamic of its "glory". Only very recently specific lines of research are testing the Indic or Chinese roots of Islamic claims, but which I find that these western scholars remain completely silent about.

It took a long long time, (and even now some still continue the older concept) to add the word "Hindu" to "Arabic numerals" - I am sure many then found the "western scholarship" which attributed all credit to the Arabs as impeccable research with no maifestation of hidden motivations or agendas.

But anyway, as far as "strategic leadership" is concerned - it shows all the more the necessity of what was really "done by the Indic" and what was contributed to it from outside. For your own products could be taken out of your hands, renamed, repackaged as the product of another and then used to psychologically blunt reaction to the "other's" essentially destructive or parasitic agenda. This makes people hesitate to strike against "benefactors who enriched" their lives.

[SRoy]

In the name of God, I plead to the Admins that Mr. Jupiter may be instructed to break his posts into readable paragraphs.

A good number of threads have been rendered illegible.

[brihaspati]

^^ accept criticism! I habitually write in one continuous burst, without stopping or editing. Sometime I do break it up afterwards, but sometimes it doesn't allow me to re-edit. If admin can, I request that they break up as fit, in case I have overlooked. In any case I think I lurk mostly in four threads, with rare forays into 2-3 - I think I am hogging only a tiny corner!

[SRoy]

^^ accept criticism! I habitually write in one continuous burst, without stopping or editing. Sometime I do break it up afterwards, but sometimes it doesn't allow me to re-edit. If admin can, I request that they break up as fit, in case I have overlooked. In any case I think I lurk mostly in four threads, with rare forays into 2-3 - I think I am hogging only a tiny corner!

Please do, since I'm following your posts....

[RamaY]

Brahaspati-ji,

I will keep your kind advice in my mind.

I am all in for reorienting Hinduism to meet contemporary world-scenario and challenges. It might sound like a broken record, but strategic reorientation was done in Indian history before. I would like to point out few examples, even though there are many other equally significant leaders/events.

1. ~3100BC - Bhagavan Sri Krishna - at the end of Dwapara eon. A good summary of this was posted at http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 87#p533087. Bhagavan Sri Krishna provided Political, Military, and cultural direction to Bharatiya nation at this point. It is very interesting to note that this leadership was provided to entire Bharta Varsha (Indian Sub-continent), contrary to popular belief that India was never a single nation before the divine British Intervention.
2. ~500 BC – Siddhartha Gautama - Here the strategic leadership was limited to spiritual realm only.
3. ~300 BC – Arya Chanakya – Strategic leadership was limited to political, and military realms only.
4. ~700 ACE - Jagadguru Adishankara. Here the strategic leadership was limited to cultural/spiritual context only AFAIK.
5. ~1400 ACE – Vidyaranya - Strategic leadership covers spiritual, political, and military realms.


Shankk-ji,
What you said about Hinduism is true, but not the absolute truth. Without going into religious discussion, we can agree that Hinduism also needs reorientation so it can establish solid foundation for Bharatiya strategic future.

[ramana]

RamaY, Re-post that article here.

ramana

[RamaY]

X-Posting

A free translation of a great article from one of the Telugu news papers. Any/all mistakes are mine...

As per the History written by Bharatiyaas (Indians) Lord Krishna lived during the end days of Dwapara eon. He passed away 5109 years before present day. Before that Krishna lived for 120 years. The Mahabharata war happened in 3138BC. In this background the historical facts about Sri Krishna and Balarama become more meaningful.

Krishna is India’s first statesman. He inspired entire India with his nationalistic vigor. But neither became a king or monarch nor he ruled the populace.

Before Krishna’s birth, the ‘Bruhadradha’ clan has been ruling the Bharata varsha for almost 1000 years with ‘Girivraja’ as the capital. Girivraja was todays Magadha area. ‘Jarasandha’m, ruler of Girivraja, was that days monarch for India.

Naraka from ‘Pragjyotisha’ (present day North East) has been plundering eastern India. Attacking Indian culture and border states.

South-indian kingdoms didn’t recognize Jarasandha’s hegomany. Kamsa was ruling the Mathura kingdom, which is located west of Magadha. Gonanda clan of Kashmir were followers of Jarasandha. Between Mathura and Kashmir was Kuru kingdom. Eventhough Bhishma was a great leader, he denounced the kingdom and was busy with family affairs, thus becoming ineffective in addressing national issues. Videha and Vidharbha kings were totally useless. The Kiraata clan kings of Nepal stayed as mere spectators to Narakaa’s south-western moves. To west of Kashmir was Gandhara and further south was Madra. Both these kingdoms started drifting away from hindu national culture and being influenced by external tribal cultures.

Magadha, irrespective of being the centre of the Bharata-varsha and cultural leader, became ineffective in fulfilling its role as protector of the culture and Bharata varsha. More over Magadha’s social order became a mess with so many unnatural tendencies. Cannibalism became a fashion among few cults. New interpretations of Vedas and Upanishads have come up.

In such a background Krishna and Krishna Dwaipayana Vyasa entered Indian social and political scene. Due to their enmity with Kamsa, Krishna and Balarama spent most of their childhood away from Mathura. Krishna killed Kamsa when he was 12 years old. Kamsa’s father Ugrasena became king to Mathura. Jarasandtha was Kamsa’s father-in-law. Thus Jarasamtha, the emperor , has become lifelong enemy of Krishna and tried to get back at him. In the process Jarasamtha gave up his responsibility towards Bharata Varsha.

Krishna felt the necessity of removing Jarasantha as he is going away from Bharatiyata or sanatana-dharma. But to protect the cultural and national integrity, removal of Magatha king requires another able power center.

Per Krishna’s strategy, Jarasantha’s death is the first step in achieving Indian cultural and national integrity. Setting up the alternate power center is second step. Establishing the literary foundation for thus re-united national culture is third step. Krishna is the only leader who achieve all these three objectives of his strategy.

The decision about who should be the new emperors had been made after Draupadi swayamvaram. He propped-up the Pandavas after this incident. Killing of Hidimba and Bakasura by Bhima and Destroying the Matsya Yantra during the swayamvara became symbols of Pandavas’ capabilities. Thus Krishna showed his statesmanship in electing the righteous and sanatana-dharma-worshipping Pandavas as future emperors of India.

The household issue of Kuru and Pandavas is a small issue. If resolving this issue is the objective, Krishna would have killed Duryodhana after Subadhra and Arjuna’s marriage and made Pandava’s new kings of Hastinapura.

But Krishna’s enemity is with Jarasantha and his inability in protecting the national and cultural integrity of Bharata varsha. That is why he encouraged Yudhistara (Dharmaraja) to conduct ‘Rajasuya yaga’ so he can introduce all the kings and kingdoms in Bharata varsha to Pandavaas.

Conducting rajasuya while there is an emperor (Jarasandha) in the land means questioning the authority of Jarasandha. That is why Bhima killed Jarasantha. This is all part of Krishna’s strategy. Entire Bharata varsha believed in the capabilities of Pandavas with the killing of Jarasantha.

In addition to building an alternate power center, rejuvenating the veda based national-cultural identity is also highly important. Vedas are the foundation of our national culture. With the help of Krishna Dwaipayana (Veda Vyasa) he revived the sanatana dharma. Vyasa organized the Vedas as per contemporary needs. Naimisaranya and Badarikaranya became the new scientific and literary centers.

Even after achieving these epic tasks, Krishna didn’t became the ruler or king. A true statesman is not limited just to the political aspect of nation building. In the national-cultural leadership, politics is just one part. This is the outlook of Indians. This is India’s culture. And Krishna is the epitome of this culture. If this Son-of-India’s creation lived and survived for 5000 years in spite of numerous military, cultural and religious onslaughts, what is wrong in calling Krishna god’s avataar?

[brihaspati]

RamaYji,

A great post.

I also think that the concept of the nationhood exists as early as the Mahabharatam, and Krishna was epitome (at least as the narrative represents him) of "strategic leadership".

Krishna's main vision is that of the Indian nation, and he does everything possible to establish a single state framework that guarantees certain principles of interaction between the state and its components. It is possible that he faced the evils of the disparate regional conflicts, forced to migrate from one relative to another, and thus went out of the dominant clan in North India then - the Yadus, to find solution.

His journeys stretch from principalities ruled by relatives from Magadha in the east to Mathura in centre to Dwarka in the west) to seek out and use a faction of the Kurus as his tool to overcome the pre-existing fractures. Jarasandha was related to him through kinship if I am not mistaken. Thus he could rise above his clan allegiances - for we see that he is personally and directly involved in liquidations of Kansa and Jarasandha. He had perhaps also realized early the problems of internecine regional warfare and decided to work towards unification and a "just" state.

What was the motivation in choosing the Pandavas - obviously a weaker faction of the Kurus but individually talented and capable. Was Krishna deliberately looking for individuals not strongly involved with the existing regional political clans - and therefore more suitable for implementation of his "national vsision"? (I am keeping out the Kunti connection here - which could also imply a kind of political/military integration between the older urbanized settlements and more nomadic northerners through Yadu-Kuru "marriage". Krishna could be thinking of this marital kinship connection also wrt Pandavas).

He could have done nothing and stayed in the prosperity of his city - but he did play the role of the statesman, and his vision was unification on the basis of what he considered "Dharma", and he does this with a specific geo-political framework in mind. In fact his moves of sending Arjuna around to the NE, and establishing marital connections with various tribes as well as with his own clan indicates that he has the subcontinent in its entirety in his vision.

[ramana]

The dialogues between Krishna and the Pandavas before the decision to perform Rajasuya yagna are wonderful in political alliances. He sends of Arjuna and the other three brothers on digvijaya (Yuddhistir holds the fort in Indraprastha) and its instructive to read all that.